Learn How To Make Unconstitutional Obama's HHS Mandate Accommodation

Not only on behalf of the Roman Catholic Church, and all similarly situated Pro-life employers, but in addition on behalf of all similarly situated Pro-Lifers as well, thereby ensuring as a matter of law that the government will never prohibit a Roman Catholic from practicing the religious doctrine as taught by His Holiness Pope Paul VI in his controversial 1968 Encyclical Humanae Vitae on contraception.

Sunday, May 6, 2012

On
December 8, 2011, my Holy Father Letter was mailed to Rome with a one page letter
to Cardinal Raymond Burke reporting the shortcomings in the Prolife Position of
his U.S. Bishops in time to have an impromptu conference on January 19, 2012
which in turn prophetically prepared them on January 20th to come out swinging after the
HHS mandate was issued! In general that letter not only
prepared them to challenge the HHS mandate but in particular the February 10,
2012 fake accommodation to the Holy Roman Catholic Church as well. Read the above Holy Father letter (double
clicking highlighted above) to find out what the Holy Father was aware of
before January 19, 2012.

Sunday, April 22, 2012

On February 10, 2012, responding to
pressure from the Roman Catholic Church [RCC] not to pay for that portion of
its “Employer’s Share” of group health insurance [GHI] plan premiums which goes
to pay for coverage of contraception, defined in 2010 as including
abortifacients, and also sterilization, Obama announced his religious
conscientious objector accommodation to the RCC which, on the one hand, exempted
the RCC from having to pay that portion of its “Employer’s Share” of GHI plan premiums
which went to pay for this religiously offensive coverage in question, yet on
the other hand, nevertheless, all RCC Employees' GHI plan members would still have
available to them this religiously offensive coverage in question, even without
a copay!

Yet by reason that religiously
offensive portion of GHI plan premiums will now not only come out of the “RCC’s
Share” – which to the contrary proves Obama
a liar by alleging his accommodation protects RCC religious freedom - but
in addition this GHI premium increase would come out of the “Employee’s Share”
of GHI plan premium costs as well for all non-offensive to religion GHI coverage
in order to compensate for the difference. Who is Obama kidding by claiming
that the GHI Company will pay for it? Yet on second glance, on the one hand on
its face he is correct, although on the other hand, Obama is violating John
7:24, which states: “Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment”.

Even though the following has never been considered before by the United States
Conference of Catholic Bishops [USCCB],
nevertheless, all Prolife RCC Employees' GHI plan members are still coerced to consent to an always available
temptation to violate religion in practice in order to become eligible to
receive all non-offensive to religion GHI benefits which is a clear
violation of the Free Exercise of Religion Clause under my breakthrough in
religious freedom which is explained elsewhere. Moreover, this religiously
offensive condition of employment existed and still exists no matter whether the
GHI plan is sponsored by the RCC or not. As an ecumenical effort, by
coincidence, no less, all non-RCC employed Prolife GHI plan members are
similarly situated as well. In addition, under these circumstances, this
violation of official Catholic Church teaching conditions a Christian to accept
the liecity or lawfulness of contraception, abortifacients, and sterilization
"in practice" which are intrinsically evil, which even if merely "in
principle" is a violation of ¶22 of the Document
on Procured Abortion. In fact, my definition thereof
creates ab initio a cause of action against the United States and all State
Governments for including coverage for abortion, contraception and/or
sterilization in its Employees' GHI. Although current case law appears on its
face to make constitutional such Anti-life GHI plans, nevertheless, to the
contrary, my breakthrough in religious freedom based solely on Sherbert
v Verner proves conclusively as a matter of law it is not.

Moreover, my reliance on Sherbert v. Verner, based on federal law no
less, is confirmed by the California Supreme Court
on March 1, 2004 holding constitutional the Women's Contraceptive Equity Act
which, in turn, made constitutional contraption coverage in GHI, even if
sponsored by the RCC.

In addition, State Courts are fully competent to
decide federal questions in this situation, pursuant to the U. S. Supreme Court
in Doran v. Salem Inn., ___ US ____ (1975). Consequently, if successful
in my appeal to the Appellate Term in Brooklyn, N.Y., in People v. Rosano, 2010-01868 CRD, which argues that my definition
of a burden on the free exercise of religion or what I call “breakthrough in religious
freedom”, is upheld as constitutional, then, I will soon be eligible to argue Pro
Se my justification defense in Court in order to make unconstitutional abortion
and contraception as a matter of law. In 1985, the U. S. Claims Court in Rosano v. United States (9 Cl.Ct. 137) held
essentially that if I could prove GHI which includes religiously offensive but
mandatory coverage for abortion, contraception and sterilization is unconstitutional,
then, consequently, I would have jurisdiction in federal court to decide not
only the constitutionality of abortion and contraception, but of homosexuality,
euthanasia and even prayer in schools.
Based on my 30 years legal research under
the doctrine of res judicata, Sherbert v. Verner controls whether the
HHS mandate violated the Federal First Amendment to the U. S. Constitution. In
turn, my breakthrough in religious freedom when applied renders Obama's
religious conscientious objector accommodation unconstitutional under the Federal
First Amendment.

Conclusively, the HHS mandate is not only unconstitutional, but Sherbert v.
Verner is a litmus test to bounce Obama and all who consented to do so
out of Federal employment or Government Office, as well. Consequently, therefore,
the HHS mandate must become unconstitutional, whether or not the U. S.
Supreme Court holds to the contrary in June, 2012 when that decision is
expected.

Saturday, March 24, 2012

As
His Holiness Pope Leo XIII declared in his Encyclical Inscrutabili Dei Consilio (1878),namely, that“A religious error is the main root of all social
and political evils” - see the September 2009 issue of Culture Wars Magazine ("CW") for "The Pro-Life Reservation or How Mr. Smith Got to Go to Washington" on pages 14 to 33 - consider moreover the letters to the editor section in the February 2012 issue
of CW (www.culturewars.com) for information that reveals certain other people in the Right to Life Movement in the
U.S. who are responsible also for sabotagingall Prolife efforts, but especially those efforts taken by the Holy
Roman Catholic Church in the U.S. In sum, in order to nullify this Anti-Life
HHS mandate, I now propose two (2) necessary and sufficient grounds to do so based on these: Faithand Law. Since“A religious error is the
main root of all social and political evils”, I definebelow the religious error that the Catholic Church has bought into hook, line
and sinker for 49 years now merely because the U.S. Supreme Court hid it as a matter of law – although visible, unnoticed
by anyone - its judicial lie, solely based on this religious error, follows:

THE RELIGIOUS ERROR
DEFINED:

A religiously offensive coercionto consent to a proposed temptation to violate religion in principle, only [defined as never in practice]
is just as religiously offensive as
both religiously offensive coercions to (1) violate religion in practice, and (2) consent to an
always-available temptation to violate religion in
practice.

By observation, a Prolife Catholic coerced to join a group health insurance
[GHI] plan which includes coverage for abortion, contraception and
sterilization is, by identity, coerced to, as above indicated: (1) violate
religion in practice [by paying that
portion of the Employee’s Share of GHI plan premiums which are used to pay for
abortion, contraception and sterilization] and (2) consent to an
always-available temptation to violate religion in
practice [if not for him/herself[1], then also to
tempt other GHI plan members, thereby cooperating with intrinsically evil
practices formally by making this coverage in question available to them], as
well. In 2004, the California Supreme Court[2]
coerced the Catholic Church to either sponsor contraception in all GHI plans, offered to all its employees who work at Catholic Hospitals and Catholic Charities, or else, be punished for not doing so by being denied the opportunity to offer any GHI plans at all. Yet in 2004 the Bishops caved in. Yet again in 2007 the U. S. Conference of Catholic Bishops caved in by adopting that policy as their own also. In 2010 the Government defined the term “contraception” to include abortifacients as well.Yet Sherbert v. Verner, pursuant to federal law, no less, upon which that 2004 California ruling was exclusively based was designed by the U. S. Supreme Court to judicially resolve only a set of facts and circumstances which in
reality placed the religious adherent in question, Mrs. Sherbert, in the
religiously offensive condition to consent to a proposed temptation to violate
religion “in principle, only”, which again means never in practice, as
opposed to the two religiously offensive coercions which I above designated as
(1) and (2) which are both coercions “in practice”, not “in principle,
only”.

The U. S. Supreme Court in Sherbert
and Thomas v. Review Board created an accommodation
test - the latter affirming the former case law – whereby, with that specific coercion in question the Government was entitled to step in by consequently creating an inroad on religious freedom,yet only by demonstrating to the Court beforehand that its doing so served the least restrictive means of achieving some compelling state interest. However to the contrary, unless the Government was permitted to do so, a religious adherent must enjoy all the full religious freedom in question, as in fact was the case with Mrs. Sherbert. However in Sherbert and Thomas, the religious error was planted by pretending to include facts and circumstances that allegedly pertained to Mrs. Sherbert’s situation, but however it did not. This brought about the present judicial denial of religious freedom, such as we have today, as follows: "The ruling [disqualifying Mrs. Sherbert from benefits because of her refusal to work on Saturday in violation of her faith [emphasis, added]."[3] As a result all lawyers, judges, Catholic Clerics and/or Faithful, and all others read that above passage which indicated the clear interpretation that what caused Mrs. Sherbert to raise her type of burden on the free exercise of religion in the first place occurred solely when the State disqualified Mr. Sherbert from Unemployment Compensation Benefits only when she refused to violate her religion in practice. But to the contrary that statement is its own refutation. Here’s why: In order to qualify for Unemployment Compensation Benefits, Mrs. Sherbert was asked whether she was ready, willing and able to accept the possibility of talking a job – in case a job was ever offered to her, that is which would require her to work also on Saturdays in violation of her faith as a Seventh Day Adventist [who regard Saturdays as their day of sabbath]. Yet
when she answered, “No”, she became disqualified to receive the benefits in
question. But according to the facts and circumstances, Mrs. Sherbert was coerced to consent to a proposed temptation to violate religion in principle, only. Why "in principle only"? Because had she only agreed to do so, Mrs. Sherbert would have
received weekly checks for Unemployment Compensation Benefits until offered to
take a job which might include a Saturday workday. Nevertheless, she would
never be coerced to take any job which required her to violate her religion in
practice since the State had ruled beforehand that she was “fired without good cause”. To the contrary, then, the truth is that this in reality otherwise qualified her for the benefits in question “because of her refusal to work on Saturday in violation of her faith” (as cited above). Consequently, this ambiguity conceals the Court’s true possibility to allow a Governmental imposition on religious liberty in some cases, while pretending to allow the Government to usurp religious liberty in cases (1) and (2), above, pursuant to the underlined passage above in Thomas. On the other hand, the religious error behind the HHS mandate - by identity the judicial lie in Sherbert - was prophetically refuted in Evangelium vitae by His Holiness Pope John Paul II at ¶73 and ¶74, as follows:

“¶73…. There is
no obligation in conscience to obey such laws; instead there is a grave and
clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. From the very
beginnings of the Church, the apostolic preaching reminded Christians of their
duty to obey legitimately constituted public authorities (cf. Rom 13:1-7; 1 Pet
2:13-14), but at the same time it firmly warned that ‘we must obey God rather
than men’ (Acts 5:29). In the Old Testament, precisely in regard to threats
against life, we find a significant example of resistance to the unjust command
of those in authority. After Pharaoh ordered the killing of all newborn males,
the Hebrew midwives refused. ‘They did not do as the king of Egypt commanded
them, but let the male children live’ (Ex 1:17). But the ultimate reason for
their action should be noted: ‘the midwives feared God’ (ibid.). It is
precisely from obedience to God – to whom alone is due that fear which is
acknowledgment of his absolute sovereignty-that the strength and the courage to
resist unjust human laws are born. It is the strength and the courage of those
prepared even to be imprisoned or put to the sword, in the certainty that this
is what makes for ‘the endurance and faith of the saints’ (Rev 13:10). In the case of an
intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it
is therefore never licit to obey it, or to ‘take part in a propaganda campaign
in favour of such a law, or vote for it’ (emphasis, added).

On the other hand, "The problem is an ancient one and with near unanimity our civilization has sought its solution in 'Render therefore unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.' (St. Matthew, ch 22, verse 21.)" at People v. Life Science Church
[450 N.Y.S.2d 664, 674 (S.Ct. 1982)]. Well, understand that I am a non-lawyer, but consider asking an attorney about following Matthew Chapter 22, Verse 21 under New York State Penal Law 35.05, Subdivision #1 by following the above case law passage as a "judicial decree" where arguendo in case Pro-Lifers are criminally prosecuted, in turn, the District Attorney would have the burden of proof to disprove beyond a reasonable doubt that Pro-Lifers are justified to oppose, e.g., the HHS mandate.

CONCLUSION

As a matter of law, the
corruption hidden by the U. S. Supreme Court for 49 years until now, yet based
exclusively on the judicial lie, is in reality the religious error, as defined
on page 1 to this blog which is within the expertise of the Catholic Church to
expose which thereby gives the Catholic Church authority the more to make the
HHS mandate unconstitutional. On the other hand, if
interested in my overall Prolife Strategy, no less in supporting my unique and
powerful Prolife work by developing legal reasoning to outlaw both abortion and
contraception per se, then, kindly begin by sending me your request to my email
at: L.R.Rosano@gmail.com and title it, "DEFINITION", and I will begin
by sending you my one-page proposed but 2004 copyrighted definition of the
burden on the free exercise of religion which is both precise and accurate
because derived exclusively from Sherbert v.
Verner, affirmed by Thomas v. Review
Boardwhich if left uncorrected - as it is now, as
revealed above - creates a crisis which was described by His Excellency Bishop
William Murphy shouting to about 100 Knights of Columbus chapter members in the
spring of 2004 that "The very survival of the Roman Catholic Church is at
stake!" which thereby logically extends to all other faiths as well.May God bless you with
wisdom and good health.

Sincerely, Yours in
Christ,

Lawrence R. Rosano, K of
CP.S. As time is of the
essence, please immediately, e.g., email this blog to other similarly
situated Pro-Lifers to continue this blog-chain by double-clicking below in the
horizontal row of rectangles the "M" in the first box thereto; etc.
Thank you!

ENDNOTES:[1]Note: Even assuming arguendo, here, the religious adherent is indeed strong enough to withstand the temptation in question, nevertheless he or she is still sinning from pride, known as the sin of presumption - i.e., by believing he or she will be saved by "his/her own efforts" without "God's help" or visa versa - which sin filters into their consciences in unsuspecting ways, especially in view that abortion and/or contraception are intrinsically evil practices.

[2]The California Supreme Court agreed with a lower court decision that the state's Women's Contraception Equity Act (WCEA) requires employers who provide prescription drug benefits in their health care insurance plans to include prescription contraception coverage. Catholic Charities of Sacramento challenged the constitutionality of the provision, specifically with regard to its right to the free exercise of religion. The court held that Catholic Charities was not entitled to an exemption as it did not meet the criteria of a "religious employer" as delineated in WCEA. Furthermore, WCEA "served a compelling state interest [emphasis, added] in the elimination of ... gender discrimination in the provision of health benefits"; had a "secular legislative purpose"; was valid and neutral; and neither advanced or inhibited religion. The California Supreme Court concluded as decisive its decision to do so as: “We therefore review Catholic
Charities’ challenge to the WCEA under the free exercise clause of the
California Constitution in the same way we might have reviewed a similar
challenge under the federal (emphasis, added) Constitution after Sherbert, supra, 374 U.S.
398, and before Smith, supra, ….”, Catholic Charities of Sacramento,
Inc. v. The Superior Court of Sacramento County, Dept. of Managed Health Care
et al, Real Parties in interest, Catholic Charities, 85 P.3d 67, 91, 10 Cal.Rptr.3d 283, at 311-2; 32
Cal. 4th 527, at 562 (S.Ct.Ca. March 1, 2004).

Blog Archive

About Me

I am a non-lawyer turned legal researcher to vindicate my termination due to religious discrimination by the federal government for opposing the Federal Employees' Group Health Insurance Benefits' Program [FHB] that included coverage for abortion, contraception and sterilization. Fired on a pretext after only 7 months employed but really for 7 weeks of insubordination due to this FHB issue I raised, all Courts left me in a catch 22 realizing that this issue is a hot potato! But after all Prolife attorneys said that I must wait until the law changed, frustrated I represented myself to find out firsthand the basis in The Law that permitted the government or any employer to coerce me to violate my religion in practice or else be punished for not doing so by a denial of all non-offensive-to-religion FHB benefits was and still is a clear judicial lie. So contrary to Prolife attorneys as I pointed out in my book, I uncovered not only how to reverse the decline in religious freedom for the past 49 years thereby resolving my FHB issue mentioned above, but also learned how to legally justify my Prolife Tax Strike, not only for myself but for any courageous Prolifers after reading my book.